Why The Gospel Coalition – or at least Al Mohler and Company – Must Apologize

Many people are responding to the recent developments with Tullian Tchividjian being booted from The Gospel Coalition (TGC), ridiculous comments and vitriol by Joe Carter, public spokesman of The Gospel Coalition, TGC’s support of and even promotion of C.J. Mahaney in his ministry efforts, despite the fact that he and the family of churches he presided over are under investigation for covering up and failure to report sex abuse crimes. One such person is Taylor Joy, a regular reader here.

Last night she shared with me a post she was going to put on her own blog and graciously gave me permission to post it here. Her voice resonates with mine. Let’s hear Taylor Joy share her thoughts on the matter. ~Julie Anne

“Even with those constraints, however, let me be clear about this: I have never conspired to protect a child predator, and I also deny all the claims made against me in the civil suit.”

Why The Gospel Coalition – or at least Al Mohler and Company – Must Apologize

I read this exchange with Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition, and my stomach sank. Carter seems completely oblivious to the culpability that members of TGC—heck, FOUNDERS of TGC!!!–have towards the Nate Morales abuse survivors.

Since he can’t seem to put the connections together, allow me to spell it out for him:

1) Carter claims that “TGC has no authority to get involved in matters at the local church level.”

Even better–Mahaney sat on the front speakers’ row at the Together 4 the Gospel conference. Sorry, when founding members of TGC support a local pastor–that’s an involvement! Like it or not, Mr. Carter, The Gospel Coalition **members** have been actively endorsing C.J. Mahaney for a long time, except for Tullian Tchividjian.

Oh, whoopsie–Tchividjian is not a member anymore, is he?

If TGC has no authority over the cover-up of Nate Morales’ abuse, then why were Mohler et al allowed to use Together 4 the Gospel slogans and stationary to support C.J. Mahaney? Or does TGC have no authority over T4G matters either?

2) Carter claims that many protestants want a hierarchical organization for the church, similar to Catholicism, but then claims that such a structure doesn’t exist, and that each church is autonomous.

Carter must have his head in the sand, because the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement promotes a different–but just as binding–type of authority structure:

The Neo-Calvinist crowd cannot promote such stringent authoritarianism in the home and the church, then claim that TGC has nothing to apologize for. If Mohler, Piper, and friends weren’t actively promoting that everyone submit to some figurehead above them, then parents of abused kids at Sovereign Grace wouldn’t have been programmed to submit to their pastor’s “authority,” and keep the abuse from the police. You can’t program “authority” into the hearts and minds of the sheep, then disavow any responsibility once the wolves come in.

3) Carter claims that TGC has already spoken out against child sexual abuse, and that its critics are saying it “wasn’t enough.” He refuses to make a statement in support of the victims, because he thinks critics will CONTINUE to say it wasn’t enough, unless TGC outright condemns Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries.

Um…well…DUH!!!

Founding TGC members supported Mahaney, who was just revealed to be a bald-faced liar!! That was a slap in the face to every victim who had to endure the cover-up, and submit to their pastoral “authority!!” These victims and their parents believed the falsehood that GOD HIMSELF set up this type of authority, and if they didn’t SUBMIT, they were disobeying GOD, and where do you think they GOT THAT IDEA???

From YOU GUYS.

So. No. Speaking out against the amorphous idea of child abuse in general is not enough. It will never be enough. Your organization has specific sins to repent of:

2) Teaching unBiblical hierarchical authority structures for the church and home, and even going so far as to imply that if a church member disagrees with these authority structures, he or she may not be saved. This created such a culture of fear that few were willing to break with the authority, and go to the police.

143 comments on “Why The Gospel Coalition – or at least Al Mohler and Company – Must Apologize”

If I had my way, every minister and every pew sitter would be forced to read the lawsuit. I sent a link to a person last night. “Oh, heaven’s. I had to stop reading it.” To which I replied, “Thank you, for reading at least some of it. These children had to live it.” I also said that God will hold accountable people who have fawned over TGC and T4G and ignored the children.

God bless you, Taylorjoyyoung! “The Neo-Calvinist crowd cannot promote such stringent authoritarianism in the home and the church, then claim that TGC has nothing to apologize for.”

I figured Calvinism and Calvinistas would soon come to an end of their minor resurgence, I just didn’t think they would crumble quite like this — sex abuse scandals and cover-ups (Mahaney et al.), hierarchical abuse and manipulation (TGC, T4G, Mohler, Piper et al.), and plagiarism (Driscoll). All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t fix this mess. (I just picture Jesus shrugging His shoulders, shaking His head, saying, “Don’t look at Me — I wasn’t in the resurgence from the beginning.)

I’m late to this party but have been a fan of C.J.’s for several years, and read his wife and daughters’ blog. What am I missing in that I don’t hear of any evidence that C.J. actually knew? Where is the proof please? Joanna

Hi JA. Mom’s doing well. The ER sent her back to her room at the skilled nursing facility. They said it was just normal post-op bleeding. She’s doing a lot of physical, occupational and respiratory therapy. Her only difficulty is in getting in and out of bed. She is walking and exercising fine. She is a large woman, close to 300 lbs, so it’s hard for her.

I picked up on that too. I would add “child” to that definition list as well. IMHO Mahaney has his own, personal definition for each of those words.

When I recall all the stories at SGM Survivors along with what they were told by pastors and how they were treated by the same pastors, it doesn’t equal I (Mahany) am not guilty of anything that the civil suit claims.

If TGC has no authority over the cover-up of Nate Morales’ abuse, then why were Mohler et al allowed to use Together 4 the Gospel slogans and stationary to support C.J. Mahaney? Or does TGC have no authority over T4G matters either?

They have no authority when it is to their advantage to have no authority; they have absolute diktat authority when it is to their advantage to have absolute authority.
Just like Papa Chuck did with all those independent(TM) Calvary Chapels.

Joanna, Mahaney’s brother-in-law just admitted in a court of law that he was aware of the abuse at the church, but never contacted the authorities. This is the same church where Mahaney was senior pastor. I believe it is not a stretch to think C.J.’s brother-in-law would inform him about child abuse happening under his nose.

Ann, it is not only a stretch, but a huge stretch. This was a group in which sin-sniffing was prevalent and care group leaders reported group members’ sins to pastors. I’ve read this over and over again. CJ had an incessant need to be in the know about the ongoing sins. It doesn’t line up with what was practiced for him to not know. And keep in mind, there were many cases.

Joanna complains that “I don’t hear of any evidence that C.J. actually knew?” Well then, why is he hiding behind the statute of limitations? Why doesn’t he, as a professed man of God, waive the statute of limitations and let the truth come out in the God-ordained civil courts (c.f. Rom 13:1)? Is it because he has something to hide? Why doesn’t he lift a finger to aid his organizations’ victims? I submit that he fails to do so because his guilt demands denial–in this case denial of the very existence of those he failed to protect. Why is it that Mahaney is so careful to deny only that he participated in a conspiracy. Why does he not deny actual, personal participation in a coverup? Why does he not deny that he failed to protect? Why did he literally remove himself geographically from the scene of the crimes? If Mahaney is free of blame, why did he not stay behind to effect restitution for the harms perpetrated under his watch?

If nothing else, Mahaney is guilty of failing to come to the aid of some of the most vulnerable of God’s children, who suffered egregious, devastating, life-destroying harm within the family of churches over which he, Mahaney, exercised a dominating influence.

Accidental … oh my, not according to consistent Calvinistic theology — how disturbing.

BTW, as a Calvinist, well over a decade ago, I, too, dismissed sin as merely a nuisance, given that God ordains and brings about *all* things — according to Westminster Confession of Faith, and Calvinism in general. Yikes. So glad to be rid of that false teaching.

You say you have been a fan of C.J.’s for many years? Do you not recognize that it is idolatrous to put any man other than Jesus on a pedestal? Ditch the gurus, as Lydia refers to them. Follow Jesus. Only Jesus. You don’t need C.J. to get to Jesus. In fact, if you are attempting to get to Jesus through C.J., it can’t be done.

Do not Mahaney &c.’s supporters and defenders make you *just as* angry and frustrated as the actual people who committed the crimes? That is how I feel. I see no valuable difference between the one who commits such a crime and those who either hide or protect the victimizers.

And this is problem with the Calvinist God: He doesn’t get His hands dirty by forcing someone to sin or commit a crime — He merely foreordains all the circumstances and secondary causes in order to bring about sin and crime. This. Is. Heinous.

Yes, the self anointed “leaders” who defend Mahaney, and even those who only remain silent, are already on the same circle of Dante’s Inferno as C.J. himself. (God forgive me if I have crossed the line between discernment as condemning judgment.) I don’t put mere followers such as, probably, Joanna in the same category. I count them as being among the deceived. They are themselves victims. My prayer is that their eyes will be opened before they, too, suffer harm.

As to J.C. of Geneva, I will only say that I was once rather radically into the TULIP pentagram. It was rather convenient to be assured of my eternal security, though my life was not, shall we say, evidencing the fruits of salvation. Beyond that, be forewarned that J.A. may, as she has done in the past, ask us to move to another thread should we wish to discuss the life, times, and theology of the murder of Miguel Servetus.

Advance apologies should further comments be directed at me. I’m off to attend to something I’d rather avoid.

Credendum: You wrote, ” So glad to be rid of that false teaching.” Can you provide a good website regarding that? I’ve been in Calvinistic churches for years, but the fruit is so awful. If you do, thank you in advance – I don’t want to hijack the thread, I just really need some resources.

Ditto! That horrible lie hurt worse than the abuse itself, and nearly destroyed my relationship with God. Sayonara to that, and good riddance, I say! Busy celebrating the pure goodness, holiness and love of God now, in whom there is no darkness at all.

And this is problem with the Calvinist God: He doesn’t get His hands dirty by forcing someone to sin or commit a crime — He merely foreordains all the circumstances and secondary causes in order to bring about sin and crime.

Founding TGC members supported Mahaney, who was just revealed to be a bald-faced liar!! That was a slap in the face to every victim who had to endure the cover-up, and submit to their pastoral “authority!!” These victims and their parents believed the falsehood that GOD HIMSELF set up this type of authority, and if they didn’t SUBMIT, they were disobeying GOD, and where do you think they GOT THAT IDEA???

From YOU GUYS.
So. No. Speaking out against the amorphous idea of child abuse in general is not enough. It will never be enough. Your organization has specific sins to repent of:

2) Teaching unBiblical hierarchical authority structures for the church and home, and even going so far as to imply that if a church member disagrees with these authority structures, he or she may not be saved. This created such a culture of fear that few were willing to break with the authority, and go to the police.
The Gospel Coalition needs to apologize. Publicly. Immediately. Now.

Could you please share the link of the lawsuit with me? I am trying to catch up on the back story. I am really working on finding truth after years in IBLP/ATI and Vision Forum all over my home and the last church we were in as a family was PCA, so we had to learn to be Calvinists…UGH, I am a hot spiritual mess. I am trying to get back to the young teen who loved God and wanted to know His ways…..and now I find myself trying to pull the threads of deception as I have followed the wrong shepherds…Spiritual abuse from narcissistic pastors running rampant in my last 30 years.

I tend to look at things through a political lens and I am disappointed in the behavior of the GC, Al Mohler and Joe Carter in this whole mess. I find it mystifying why the “Gospel Coalition” as a group haven’t moved to distance themselves from the whole mess. It would make sense to the public at large to issue some series of statements putting daylight between you and trouble. I am not surprised with Al Mohler hanging tough with his guy Mahaney, just very disappointed. My understanding is that Mohler and Mahaney go way back as personal friends. I understand friendship being what it is, but Mahaney’s covering up and running is really a bridge too far.

I’m also disappointed in Joe’s behavior too. The courage to speak out against the use of torture by the U.S. in it’s war on terror and the use of waterboarding has been lacking here. An earlier commenter either here or elsewhere noted that Joe sounds angry in his writing and I agree with that assessment. I wish Joe would summon his courage and start calling balls and strikes as he sees them, letting the chips fall where they may.

Great response, CA, thank you. You are right, if you have only seen CJ at conferences, read his book on humility you might get a different idea of him than if you had been reading SGMsurvivors.com for any length of time.

Oh no you aren’t!!! You are on a journey and that is wonderful news. What a blessed journey! You are more healthy than many because you are willing to go on this journey.

It always boils down to “me and Jesus” to put it simply. Something that helped me was to focus on the Gospels only for about 3 years and pray a lot as the Holy Spirit is our Advocate.. Most often the cults twist Paul and I believe we cannot understand Paul UNTIL we know Jesus inside and out. And He lives.

“My understanding is that Mohler and Mahaney go way back as personal friends. I understand friendship being what it is, but Mahaney’s covering up and running is really a bridge too far”

It probably helped that Mahaney and SGM gave SBTS $200,000. That came as a big surprise to many SGM’ers who never thought to ask to see a budget in all their years there. I cannot remember the year exactly. It used to be on the SBTS website but now that has been deleted since bloggers started pointing it out a few years back.

How dare you-you know nothing about me. I’ve read one of his books, bought a cd album of some sermons, bought some SG music, and have read his wife and daughters blog pretty much since the beginning. If that makes me an idolater, so be it. You have lost me as a reader here because of this ridiculous conclusion about me. If others are like you, no wonder C.J. is already tried and convicted without any proof whatsoever-just a link between his brother-in-laws admission to being part of C.J.s family.
And for the record, it does seem very much that he would know. I am just amazed at those of you who have dubbed him guilty when there has yet to be solid proof. I asked an innocent question, thinking perhaps he admitted somewhere that he knew and I missed it, just having heard about this whole fiasco. I didn’t expect to be branded an idolater. Again, how dare you. I will not be coming back here. Ever.

I”m sorry you have not felt welcome here. I would recommend you read SGMsurvivors.com to read first-hand stories of people who have suffered under his teaching and high-controlling methods.

You mention there has yet to be solid proof. Well, that is likely because CJ has not been brought before a court yet. Another issue (statute of limitations) caused much of the case to be dismissed. That does not mean that CJ is not guilty, it just means other things prevented him from being judged in a court. The case is not closed. I think we will hear much more and the truth will come out. We’ve already heard countless witnesses say that he knew.

I know that in my day that my pastor in Maryland (in a denomination that interacted with CJ) once meant the world to me. I think that I would have fought to the death for him to defend his name. Even months after I left when working through my intense, polarized, troubling, mixed feelings about him, my counselor said, “Do you know that you sound like his greatest defender?” I don’t think that I would have believed anything bad about him until I witnessed some of these things first hand — and that likely would not have happened if I had not worked in the church office from time to time and was very involved in projects there. But things happened that I couldn’t deny, and that allowed me to put other people’s claims about him into perspective.

Julie Anne graciously republished this post of mine here on SSB, talking about the great disappointment in leaders and the painful process of realizing things. It explains a little about how the most virtuous of people and loyal people find it hard to come to terms with things when those they love behave wrongly and cause great pain. I would be honored if you would read it, and it may help you understand the context of this current post.

(That said, I lived in that area and shared some culture and participated with some of the same ministries with CLC. From that experience and the reputation locally, I was not at all surprised to read about Noel and Happymom and the personal accounts of many others. It is a heartbreaking thing, and I strongly identify with it.)

Seriously, if the statute of limitations has run, C.J. Mahaney should have *absolutely no problem* in manning up and telling all. In my opinion, the reason he is not saying anything is because it would absolutely destroy his reputation to tell the unvarnished truth. And it is my belief Mahaney’s reputation among his friends, those providing him with speaking honoraria and opportunities for book sales matter to him more than truth.

And yes, I’m absolutely trying to shame C.J. into telling the truth. At the very least, I’m trying to get him to withdraw from next month’s TGC shindig in Phoenix, the Anchored Conference.

(You wrote “YOU GUYS”!!! Now I really do think that we were separated at birth.)

I guess that I have just accepted the fact that these guys are tyrants, and I take their jackboot thug tactics for granted now. I still get angry about it, but I guess after having been on the receiving end of it once, it doesn’t surprise me. Their voicing support for CJ only served, in the long run, to draw attention to their hypocrisy and simply backfired. The same happened when they did it to me.

So what makes me really sick about this now is their foolish statements that state that legal = moral. That is a basic discussion in most all ethics classes and in many philosophy classes in academia. I guess these wise men missed class on those days and got the questions wrong on their tests. This is a discussion of moralism that concerns discussions of the unborn. Civil law for the Christian should never be misinterpreted as moral law and vice versa — especially not in a pluralistic society without a state religion.

But they made a bold statement that because the Maryland judge excluded some of the plaintiffs that this was proof that there had been no wrongdoing on CJ’s part. So on top of throwing even alleged victims under the bus which was tragic enough, they made a grave philosophical error here that any undergrad in philosophy should be able to peg without cracking open a book.

This is a grave moral error on a philosophical level. Headless Unicorn Guy or Brad, have you read any Hume or even Kant on this issue? I’d love to hear your thoughts on how this applies.

“I told Ben Peays this last night. I called him and I told him, ‘That statement’s misleading and you know it,'” said Tchividjian, “… The way the statement read, it was as if he came down to Fort Lauderdale to talk with me on behalf of the coalition regarding the theological issue that they were having with me. That is categorically false.”

Tchividjian explained that Peays flew down to Florida as a consultant for the pastor’s new ministry, Liberate, which also picked up the bill for his flight. He added that he (Tullian) initiated a conversation about moving his blog content off the coalition’s website and that “it was never ever insinuated that that’s what The Gospel Coalition wanted.”

“To cover themselves so they would not look like bullies, they took a trip that Ben took two months ago, turned that trip and made it look like The Gospel Coalition sent him down to cover these concerns — and that’s just a flat-out lie. That’s a lie,” said Tchividjian. “It just calls into question their integrity. Why would they spin it that way? Why did they say it that way?”

“Why doesn’t someone just come and out say ‘I didn’t abuse children but to the degree that it happened under my watch I’m sick to my stomach and I will apologize and I will do everything and anything I can do to cooperate with the investigation and serve the victims and their families.’ Period. Signed, C. J. Mahaney,” Tchividjian said.

“Say that, it still seems like ‘I didn’t do anything.’ I’m just like ‘Oh my gosh man.’ If I was the head of an organization where this kind of behavior had been taking place for years, even though if I didn’t actually perform this kind of behavior, even if I didn’t even know about the behavior, the only thing I would say is ‘I’m sick. I’m sorry. I will do whatever I need to do to help the victims and their families,'” Tchividjian added. “… If The Gospel Coalition would have said that, instead of Don Carson and Kevin DeYoung and Just Taylor, basically writing in the middle of the trial, a defense of C. J. That’s a major blemish.”

“Why doesn’t someone just come and out say ‘I didn’t abuse children but to the degree that it happened under my watch I’m sick to my stomach and I will apologize and I will do everything and anything I can do to cooperate with the investigation and serve the victims and their families.’ Period. Signed, C. J. Mahaney,” Tchividjian said.
“Say that, it still seems like ‘I didn’t do anything.’ I’m just like ‘Oh my gosh man.’ If I was the head of an organization where this kind of behavior had been taking place for years, even though if I didn’t actually perform this kind of behavior, even if I didn’t even know about the behavior, the only thing I would say is ‘I’m sick. I’m sorry. I will do whatever I need to do to help the victims and their families,'” Tchividjian added. “… If The Gospel Coalition would have said that, instead of Don Carson and Kevin DeYoung and Just Taylor, basically writing in the middle of the trial, a defense of C. J. That’s a major blemish.”

Right…. Better late than never I guess. But TT should have made this statement sooner. He is truant. If TT really did have an “Oh my gosh man” moment (I’m not saying he didn’t) why not do what he actually could do at that moment – speak up… and by doing so actually help the victims and their families. He could do some self-reflecting & issue a sorry of his own….

Hmm, you have a point about the timeliness of TT and speaking out about the abuse, A Mom. Why does it always have to be so complicated? Why can’t it just be: what in the hell is wrong with you who silence abuse immediately? not 2 yrs later. I mean, come on, how long has sgmsurvivors been around? Over 5 years??

Amom, totally agree about the lateness of TT. But I have felt for a while now the movement would turn on itself. It was all about numbers to make a strong faction. I actually think they were going for a sort of “family of churches” of thing or a parachurch oversight with a few of the celebs at the helm.

All we are seeing now are the factions forming. Driscoll/James McDonald were the first. Now for the first time I am actually seeing New Calvinist SBC pastor blogs very carefully hinting around they would like to see CJ go away. That is a first. They are very careful and Mohler is never mentioned.

The movement is splintering into factions. And some of us know they will lie and obfuscate, redirect, deflect or anything that serves their agenda. Because we have seen it firsthand.

NONE of them are innocent in this. Including TT. They cannot claim ignorance of CJ because statements went up and statements went down. They are playing the PR game and accusing victim supporters of all kinds of sin.
‘
The heresy charge against TT is simply a deflection and redirection device. They are hoping he will defend himself. If he is smart he will stay on CJ message and not play their game their way.

“I hope his voice echos out far and wide…I honestly can’t believe he’s being so bold.”

Oh I can. They attacked his doctrine because of what he said about CJ. If you have been reading around the Reformed blogs you would know this is war. depending on how the reaction goes you might see a big group hug soon, too. That is always good for PR. And it is total fake when it happens. The war goes covert.

Lydia,
I have to wonder how much of the doctrine war is just fake PR. Why push a debate over the third use of the law when the real issue is reformed theology preaches the law of sin and death to regenerated Christians? Tullian does this, and his critics all do this. Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” You’ll never hear a reformed preacher tell you about the law of the Spirit of life.

You must seriously sensitive if you think I need decaf in light of my comments — I wasn’t even angry or trying very hard. God help us all if I really put my mind to it. Sorry, bro, but Calvinism and Calvinism’s ilk conspire to bring us the worst in theology and brings out the worst in people. That’s just science. :^)

Why are they attacking & blame-shifting each other? My opinion? It is no different than the Survivor TV show (outwit, outlast, outplay). THEY are seeing popular opinion souring, attendance shifting, income dropping. And it should. Why is fallout growing? Because a precious victim, then someone else, then other individuals spoke up AND wouldn’t shut up. I hope we’re just now seeing the tip of the ticked off laity/pewsitters iceberg. I hope we realize this movement is not about right religious theology, but about who controls the mutton, as Paul Dohse likes to say. Meaning, the bottom line is personal power, control, authority… not so much you and Jesus/God/HS.

During the Survivor finale, I was struck with how real-world it is vs. being just a game. Anything is game (lies, etc.) for a rise to the top. When the jury confronts the player, all they want & beg for is acknowledgement that is what happened & maybe an apology. Then the ruthless, lying player is rewarded & wins, JUST BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO COME CLEAN at the end. So, does the liar come clean because they are actually sorry for how they played the game or is it because they know that’s what they need to do at that point in time to secure what they want?

“I have to wonder how much of the doctrine war is just fake PR. Why push a debate over the third use of the law when the real issue is reformed theology preaches the law of sin and death to regenerated Christians? Tullian does this, and his critics all do this. Romans 8:2 “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” You’ll never hear a reformed preacher tell you about the law of the Spirit of life.”

IMO, which means nothing, the “doctrine war” is “wag the dog” tactics. The war was started publicly to deflect and redirect the issue of Mahaney and TGC’s defense and promotion of him for the last several years when it was obvious there was a huge problem.

They have done it over other things. They did it to Driscoll using the Elephant room thingie. Truth is, Driscoll was becoming an embarrassment. I mean, it took them that long to have a problem with Driscoll’s doctrine…..(ACts 29 partnerships, sharing stages, etc)

I don’t think people have a clue how deceptive these guys are. You cannot prove anything except track their DEEDS. Don’t ever believe what they say. Watch patterns of behavior, timelines and deeds. I saw the same stuff go on in the mega church leadership all the time. Spin, deflect, redirect.

I have big problems with Tullian’s doctrinal stance, too, along with TGC’s because I am not a determinist. . Seriously ,what difference do specifics on how “sanctification” works make when the foundational premise is determinism? Sheesh!

Another reason they are falling apart? The shining light on a hill, the Minneapolis reformed Mecca Money Machine is gone. Piper has retired. Calvin’s Geneva, Switzerland is where it’s at. That’s where Carson & Keller apparently are…

I am ashamed to say I once make a pilgrimage to that Mecca & fueled the machine with my own money. Ugh. Never again. I stand with the precious victims & those who are standing/using their voice here & want them to know evil was/is NEVER God-ordained.

Here’s his “Vision (for Husbandly Leadership) for Your Family Vacation” audio interview. Yes, Vision is in his title. A vision for your vacation is what he had for today’s listening audience. Sorry manly men, Piper’s vision doesn’t give you a leadership break, not even during vacation. 😉

“It is precisely the grace of God that is being denigrated, since it is by God’s amazing grace that Christian’s are not only justified through faith alone but are born again and given the power of Christ to live new lives ( Eph. 1:18-20)

“In Nov. 2012, I expressed concern about Tullian’s description of Christians as totally depraved since this doctrine has the point of arguing the spiritual inability of the totally depraved person, and Christians are no longer depraved.”

Wade seems to think that TT is falling out with the old line Presbyterians (pre-New Calvinism) on justification/sanctification. I haven’t read enough to say that, and I find that I get hung up on some things that TT writes on this subject. (If what Wade says is true, TT has more of a Lutheran take on what Calvin wrote which Calvin basically took from Luther to start with. But from what I understand, Luther didn’t have a big problem with Calvin, or we would have heard all kinds of bombast about it and he would have written several books. It’s the Presbys that called Lutherans antinomian — like they’re now saying of TT.)

I love it! Wade says that if you’re not called an antinomian these days, you’re basically not preaching the Gospel.

Wade, Tullian, T4G are all determinists so any disagreement over sanctification is moot. As far as I can discern they all believe in imputed guilt so we are born vipers in diapers foreordained for salvation or hell. Also all of them subscribe to penal substitutionary atonement. So when folks are starting from that premise, there is really no where for me to go with them.

I kept getting sucked into these debates on minutia and finding them black holes of mental gymnastics with references to dead guys to interpret scripture for us.. And one day listening to NT Wright I had a Eurecka moment. He said what I realized was totally true about these debates in American evangelicalism today:

They are 16th Century questions with 19th Century answers. When our questions should be 1st Century with 21st century answers. (paraphrasing but I think I got the gist. We give dead guys–mere humans– to much power to discern truth for us)

The ones who are bragging about being called antinomian these days are NOT preaching the gospel. I fell for that line awhile back. Not going to fall for it again. Jesus spoke of only two things: the traditions of men, and antinomians.

TT is addressing Carl Trueman’s article, and he’s clarifying his view concerning the “third use of the Law” which doesn’t sound New Calvinist at all. He sounds quite balanced and old Calv in his descriptions.

(I don’t know if this is consistent with his other writings or not. I haven’t read enough of his material.)

This Rosebrough interview sounds more specific, but here’s a little comment from TT in this written article which gives me pause. I’m not sure what he means. Another Tom suggested that perhaps TT is just not being very theologically precise and is just explaining things more pastorally.

But TT writes:“Sanctification, simply defined, is love for God and love for others. But what actually produces love for God and love for others? Not the law. Nowhere does the Bible say that the law produces love. Nowhere. What the Bible does say is that love for God and others is produced only by God’s love for us.

The article is sound, but I’m stuck on the statement (which may be just oversimplified) that sanctification is love expressed. Sanctification is the sovereign work of God in my inner man, and it is not something that I do. I can make it easy on myself by cooperating with the Holy Spirit, or I can resist it, but it is all God’s work. Stinking, unholy flesh cannot purify itself. The Law can’t do it either. So in that context, sanctification is what God does in me, and the fruit of that work is manifested in my behavior and my emotion as love for God and others. So perhaps he is just not being theologically precise, but he’s oversimplifying it a bit to much. No way ever is sanctification affected by what I do. The fruit of that sanctification is what I do.

So I don’t know if he’s just skipping a step here, or he’s saying that we sanctify ourselves or that our works sanctify ourselves. That’s not what he’s saying in this interview with Rosebrough.

Lydia, we don’t disagree! I’m just pointing out the obvious — and as my husband says, I’m too nice. He sounds like NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). Millions and millions of people will be lost if Piper doesn’t resign from his church so he can devote himself to the world.

“Sanctification is the sovereign work of God in my inner man, and it is not something that I do.”

This is where we disagree. I think sanctification is something we have to “do”. We have to “abide in Christ, renew our minds, all the one anothers, grow in Holiness, etc. We have an Advocate, counselor to help us. I don’t think we can wait around for God to do a work in us. I think that work was done on the Cross with Justification. And we either accept or not. But we must live out the kingdom now.

I found a neat book a while back by JC Ryle in an used bookshop called Holiness. it was one of the best explanations of Justification/sanctification I had never read. Weird because he was an Anglican Bishop and there was quite a bit I disagree with him on concerning sacraments. He wrote another book with the unfortunate title of :Practical Religion which is was very interesting, too. Especially concerning prayer and sin.

“These ministers talk in code. They understand each other, but we can’t understand them. And that’s the way they like it.”

Carmen, there is so much to this I don’t know where to start. It is as if it is designed to be confusing so people have to keep coming back to figure it out. With Piper he says it with passion and arm waving with a billion adjectives thrown in and it sounds so glorifying to God until you strip all the drama away and it makes no sense.

They make it up as they go along. Then there is the whole “white coat syndrome” that because they have a title and stand on a stage people tend to automatically think they deserve respect and trust.

Why are they talking about “third law” when there is the kingdom to live out in real time here and now? Because living out the kingdom now does not bring in money/celebrity. There are no followers in living out the kingdom now. Only believers who come together as a Holy Priesthood.

I’m arguing it from a Reformed perspective, not pontificating about it.

These guys call themselves reformed and claim by faith and by grace alone. But what they’re saying isn’t consistent with justification as a forensic declaration and definitive and progressive sanctification as separate. They’re teaching infused grace that come after and as a result of good works. At best, it’s semi-pelagian, and at worst, it’s Arminian freewillism.

You can be a Christian and absolutely saved and in love with Jesus with a semi-pelagian or Arminian faith. My great issue with this concerns the fact that they’re not preaching something consistent with Reformed theology. Some of these guys take it further and make it sound like man has no agency at all, and I think that has lead to the swing back into stuff like Norm Shepherd’s attempt to put some balance back into the discussion (though I don’t think it reads very well, shall we say).

If they want to be Roman Catholic, let them go ahead. (I believe that there are going to be plenty of Roman Catholics in heaven and know many who are very much regenerate in faith and in fruit.) I was just trying to point out the places where I’ve read TT and find elements that make him seem like a New Calvinist — to see if there is any truth to TCG’s claim that they dismissed him prematurely over doctrine.

I have been reading Reformed/NC/YRR blogs for the last 8 years and they don’t seem to understand one another either. I have seen so many variations of determinism that my head swims. I personally do not think they understand what they believe.

The only time they are united is when a non Calvinist engages. I finally got to thinking if we stop debating them they will implode on each other over doctrine and I think that is starting to happen. The rest of us are mentally exhausted and only discuss it on blogs where people are trying to figure it out.

The absolute best explanation for it came from a blog called American Jesus with an Open letter to Calvin.

Here is the quote:
“Which is why, John, it’s hard not to conclude that Calvinism is a sustained exercise in the defense against the obvious. By which I mean you’re constantly on the defense against the obvious conclusions of your claims.” – See more at: http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=12190#sthash.ckGSnj2z.dpuf

I wish I had read that 8 years ago before I tried slogging through the Institutes, getting into debates with YRR and everything else. The historical study of the Reformation though was worth it. Church history was an evil bloody mess.

OK!!! I just don’t get it. I spent 20 years in bible study. My teacher said we were getting a better Bible education than Seminary students. We studied Calvinism, Antinominionism and all the other isms. I studied verse by verse Revelations , Galations, Judges, and at least 20 other books . My husband and I felt empowered to start a para church ministry. It was very successful. Did all of our Bible training help us. Not as much as our reliance on the Holy Spirit helped us. The ministry began in Gd’s timing and ended 16 years after in His timing,

When I read about all this stuff, first law, third law , I really just don’t get it. Who cares, and why? What does thus have to do with being born again and being Indwelt by The Holy Spirit.? With being a Pastor/Teacher?

All of this intellectual verbal garbage makes me sick. Just to set the record straight, I am an educated person, with degrees and experience in many fields. Theology, also. I have come to the point in my Christian life where I knw simple is better and knowing God is better than human knowledge.

It seems like many are arguing the equivelent of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. Who cares?

Even though it may seem like the debate between TT & the guys at TGC is just a bunch of theological babble amongst Calvinists, the questions they raise about the nature of sanctification are important considerations for all believers. So, if I may, I’d like to take a stab at providing some background that may help clarify some of the issues being discussed.

I think it’s important to keep in mind that the word sanctification (or sanctify or sanctified) is used in two different ways in the NT. One is positional sanctification, which, like justification, is considered a “done deal” (e.g., “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor 6:11). This is the predominant use of the term. The other use is practical or progressive sanctification, which is the concept of growth in personal holiness (e.g., “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through.” 1 Thess 5:23). Even though this second use of the term is the less common use in the NT, it is the one that is being discussed in the debates between TT & TGC.

In the “done deal” use of the term, sanctification, like justification, is a work of the Holy Spirit, not based on human activity or merit. In the “growth in personal holiness” use of the term, believers have debated since the NT era about whether sanctification is something we do, or something only the Holy Spirit does, or both. And, of course, along with questions about what part human activity plays in sanctification come questions about what part Law plays. (In this context, Law means any of God’s commands or requirements, whether in the OT or in the NT.)

The function of Law (and our obedience to it) in our sanctification has been discussed and debated by theologians of most theological stripes (Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, Catholic, Anabaptist, etc.) The term “antinomian” basically means someone who believes and teaches that Law (God’s commands) has no place at all in the life of a believer — not as a standard, or as guide, or in any other way. True antinomians are those who teach a very cheap form of grace, in which all that is expected is for a person to profess faith in Christ (e.g., walk an aisle, pray a prayer, maybe get dunked), and then those professed believers can live their lives with zero change or evidence of the Holy Spirit being in their lives. But often people who do actually believe that God expects obedience to His commands get falsely labeled antinomian just because they aren’t as legalistic as the one calling them that, or when they have a different view of the function of Law in the life of a believer.

Christian theologians (again of most theological stripes, not just Calvinists) have defined three primary use of Law. One is to curb the sinful behavior of mankind in general (i.e., to keep unbelievers in check by warning them of the consequences of disobedience to God’s commands). Another is to function as a mirror, to show us our unrighteousness when we disobey and our need for forgiveness and Christ’s righteousness. And the “third use” (sometimes debated or denied by some groups) is to guide or teach believers how they should live.

In the case of TT, he has very clearly stated that he believes that human effort is involved in growth in holiness (progressive sanctification). So the term antinomian does not apply. He also affirms the “third use” of Law by stating that Law is useful as part of that growth. So his views in that matter are in line with most theologians in church history. Where TT places great emphasis, and where TGC guys tend to differ from him, is in the “means” by which Law aids in sanctification. Simply put, what TT says is that God’s commandments carry with them no power of any kind to obey those commandments. His focus is on the inner working of the Holy Spirit to empower believers to obey God’s commands. He also teaches that it is only through focusing on God’s grace as demonstrated in the gospel that the Holy Spirit creates within us that inner motivation and ability to obey. This appears to be the biggest beef that TGC guys have with him. They typically teach that preaching and teaching God’s commands can be a means of motivation for believers to obey those commands.

As I said, I think it is useful for all believers to consider these matters and search the scriptures to see what they teach about how we grow spiritually, and what should be our motivations for obeying God’s commands.

Calvin Beisner wrote a good article that explains some of the problems among new Calvinists and parses out this stuff about merging justification and sanctification.

Justification is like walking into court with God the Father sitting in the seat of judge. We are sinners and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. When we become regenerate however, Jesus steps us and God sees us and says, “I see the Blood of my Son, and I declare you in right standing with Me because you are in Him” Jesus paid for our justification, once and for all, and it is something that we don’t lose. (God knows our hearts, so He knows up front who is going through the motions and is not really born again, though that is often not clear to us people in this life.) This is a once and done thing, and it is FORENSIC. God declares us righteous.

Luther saw sanctification as separate, and there are two parts to it as Tom explained. That first what Tom called “positional sanctification.” Beisner calls it “definitive.” This is when imputation takes place. Our sins are imputed on to Christ who became sin for us, and we are imputed with His righteousness, not because of any good we have done or will do or can do. It is an act of love on His part. Hallelujah!!!

Then comes this progressive sanctification, and that is a process of growth and change that flows from our changed hearts and lives. You don’t get to coast through this process. If all you did was sit back and coast because there was no such thing as human agency and you were powerless over sin and God did it all, we wouldn’t have many epistles, and they wouldn’t be very long. We are told to guard our hearts and to conform ourselves and to do what’s right. We are to have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness and to walk as children of the Light. If there was no agency involved on our part and it took no effort (“fear and trembling”), we wouldn’t need these admonishments.

We don’t operate under the Law of Sin and Death anymore, but we are translated into the Kingdom of God which operates under the Law of Love. The Law of Love, however is not one of lawlessness.

Justification neither comprises nor is grounded on a renewal of our character or conduct, but definitive sanctification comprises, and progressive sanctification grows out of, just such a renewal. The initial renewal (“having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts”) is definitive sanctification; the ongoing renewal (“and those graces . . . stirred up, increased, and strengthened”) is progressive sanctification.

[A quietist is a religious mystic fixed on perfectionism via withdrawal from the world and a lot of quiet if not ecstatic contemplation. I also apologize to any Roman Catholics reading here because “Romanism” is seen as pejorative, though it is often used by Protestant theologians as it is here. Insert Roman Catholic Theology if you find this offensive. I don’t quote Beisner here to offend.]

I think that balance is the key and is the gist of what he concludes in the article. New Calvinism swings far to hard to the legalist side, and TT doesn’t. (Again, I haven’t read enough of his work to know what he believes, but the interviews that he did sound remarkably like my own perspective.)

Legalists collapse sanctifying faith into justifying faith without any distinction and so talk of an “active, living, obedient” faith in relation to justification without mentioning that it is a “resting” faith. Quietists collapse justifying faith into sanctifying faith without any distinction and so talk of a “resting” faith in relation to sanctification without mentioning an “active, living, obedient” faith.

[…]

If we conflate these two aspects of faith in either direction, we risk becoming either legalists on the one hand or quietists on the other. The former is deadly, equating with the false gospel of Romanism. The latter is debilitating, leading to practical antinomianism and long-term immaturity in the Christian life. But recognizing and preserving the distinction enables us to rest completely in the saving work of Christ at the same time that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).

“Justification is like walking into court with God the Father sitting in the seat of judge. We are sinners and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. ”

This has always confused me because people were saved in the OT by faith. Some were even called righteous. And they were “sinners”.

“When we become regenerate however, Jesus steps us and God sees us and says, “I see the Blood of my Son, and I declare you in right standing with Me because you are in Him” ”

This is another area of disagreement between Cals and non Cals. Cals say that regeneration must proceed belief because of irresistible grace. In effect, God is forcing some to believe. So it is not really our decision or choice. We really don’t have anything to do with it because it was predetermined we would be regenerated.

“Jesus paid for our justification, once and for all, and it is something that we don’t lose. (God knows our hearts, so He knows up front who is going through the motions and is not really born again, though that is often not clear to us people in this life.) This is a once and done thing, and it is FORENSIC. God declares us righteous.””

I think we can turn away from it. I think we have the power to change our minds. The book of Hebrews seems to agree. We don’t lose our “justification”. It is there. We either believe it or not.

I see justification and sanctification as two different things but the true believer has both. You cannot have one with out the other. Because they believe/repent/faith they are justified (not even sure I like the word) but without sanctification it is meaningless. Living out the kingdom now is what Christ wanted.

When I became a teenager, I continued to follow the directives I received from my parents. Why? Because I loved them and did not wish to disappoint them. Tullian teaches that our obedience to the law comes not from the law itself, but because we have been redeemed by the love God has for us and we love him in return. So we are motivated to do that which pleases him and to not do what displeases him. And the law is a guide to what displeases him! That is not antinomian at all. And I think it reflects both human behavior and scripture.

There are many reasons why I think Calvin is monster and lied about God but here is especially some of his most grievous teaching from the Institutes, book 3, chapter 2 Section 11
Section 1
“I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.”

(Some of those ‘saved’ people might be reprobate because God decided.)

Section 2

“Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.”

(So God can make them feel like they are saved but al the time not really adopting them)

“Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them.”

(An INFERIOR operation of the Spirit? The reprobate looks elect, smells elect, thinks they ARE elect but were never adopted)

Section 4

“Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”

(Notice that God is doing all this. Not the reprobate because well, you have to be elected to salvation before the foundation of the world. Not the human.So the reprobate gets to “feel” like a believer here on earth but is destined for hell. Determinism is from the pit of Hell and lies about God. Calvin lied about God

Seriously guys. After something like that should we really take Calvin seriously at all?

In order to decode Calvinism: “grace,” “what Jesus has done,” and “gospel” are all code words for justification. Is sanctification powered by justification? Calvinism says yes, which means that justification is not finished. ( Regardless of how many times Tullian says “it is finished” ,that isn’t what he is really preaching.) Biblical sanctification is powered by regeneration, the new birth, not justification. Does Christ alone obey for you in sanctification? In reformed theology, He does, and this is the “radicality” that Tullian is preaching. In biblical sanctification a believer, as a new creation, co-labors with the Holy Spirit. What you think they are saying, and what they are actually saying, are two different things.

Lydia, Calvin’s god is breathtakingly cruel. The thought of God’s children, whom He created, reaching out to Him in love and repentence but being denied because God had decided to condemn them before they were ever even born makes no sense. Why would God, who sent his only begotten Son to save us on the cross, want to do that? I just don’t understand how Calvin could teach such a thing.

If Calvin is right then God does not care for me and He most certainly does not care about child victims of heinous crimes. If Calvin is right, I cannot really blame the humans who do the evil or protect evil because it was all determined. And worse, Christians can do evil because sinners sin and all sin is equal as we are all guilty of Adams sin that was imputed to all of us. So yelling at your dog and violating children is all the same. This is all part of His Sovereign plan to Glorify Himself. Because God wanting Glory is what creation was all about. His Sovereignty is all God cares about.

If Calvin were right then burning Servetus was glorifying to God because he was a heretic. The banishments, torture and imprisonment were Glorifying to God.

We would have to believe it was never about a loving relationship which requires free will to be real. We would have to believe it is all about force, dualism, determinism. An angry God that creates laws people cannot follow on purpose. (Why since He determined who would be saved and who wouldn’t before Adam even sinned)

I found I could not live with that. I have to believe we are responsible for what we believe, how we believe, what we do and don’t do. I have to believe we have not only have choices in the matter but responsibility and accountability for what we do here as the Kingdom of God here and now.

Joanna wrote, in part, “I did expect to be branded an idolater. Again, how dare you. I will not be coming back here. Ever.”
This breaks my heart. Prior to this, Lydia, Anne, and Christianagostic had sought to answer her questions. After this, Julie Anne, Cindy K, and Lydia did so again– but she was likelygone forever by then. I don’t know if her “you” was singular or collective, but only one commenter drove her away. I wish, dear commenter, that you’d take a deeper breath sometimes and let others answer when someone like Joanna works up the courage to post here. Think of this from the sidebar, perhaps: “Out of our wounds flow compassion, understanding, & grace. May we all be “wounded healers” who do no harm.”

I must confess in light of some of the comments related to the commenter Joanna and to Calvinists in general that I, as a Calvinist, am a little confused as to the purpose of this thread. Is it to try to discuss abuse in the church, or assert that every Calvinist (or perhaps in this thread I should derogatorily say “Calvinistas” or Calvinism’s “ilk”) is an abuser who preaches hate and has no concern for others? As I have grown older and learned about more denominations than the non-Calvinist one in which I grew up, I have been encouraged to find sincere followers of Christ in many denominations, and I believe that all of those who are sincerely Christian are my brothers and sisters in Christ, whether Arminian, Calvinist or something in between. So for those of you commenting who are Christian, please treat Calvinists like me with at least some respect, whether or not you agree with us. Many of us love Christ and our fellow people too. And we do not support abuse in the church. It is true that I disagree with much of this blog’s assessment of the Gospel Coalition, but if you want to convince me of your views regarding recent events, it would help me to not have to sort through blanket attacks and insinuations about all Calvinists. We are people too, not just some punching bag that can be battered at will.

Because he was a determinist and God determined him to have power over others in Geneva. If all is determined then why did Calvin have so much power the second time around in Geneva? It makes perfect sense in that determinist paradigm. In fact, when the plague broke out and some were coming to Calvin saying the dying were asking for him, he instructed his servants to tell people he was not there. In a letter later he wrote to a friend that he was too important to the church to take the chance.

We see the same thinking all the time here in both Calvinist and non Calvinist protestant circles here. “Touch not thine anointed”. Or “obey your leaders”.

I heard a Calvinist speaker not long ago tell a group of teens that God decides who is rich and who will be given other blessings besides riches. So God made Soros and Buffet rich along with Sheiks who oppress.

Once you apply “God is in control”, the conclusions cannot be anything else no matter how much they are denied or explained away.

IMO,
There is MUCH confusion on what reformed leaders of our day are teaching. When some of us watch the application of their teaching to daily life, we are alarmed & warn others to be careful. Be careful before: signing a membership agreement, be aware of heavy-handed church discipline, of shunning, of submitting to any sort of abuse, of leadership making your own personal decisions for you, of being sued & taken to the cleaners for disagreement. Be aware of a possible imbalance of power, control, authority of pastors & elders, etc.

What I see is a consistent denial of:
1.An individual, personal choice to follow Jesus. Count the cost, weigh your decision to follow Jesus is denied because they say God picks & chooses. Why must we count the cost? Because if you want to follow Jesus you must choose to turn away from wrong-doing & choose abundant & everlasting life which is to love God, love ourselves & others. Choosing Jesus is choosing life, not death. Jesus offers a life raft. He doesn’t force anyone. Each decides to reach out to Jesus or not.

2.An individual, personal choice (along with the indwelling help of Holy Spirit) to love God, love ourselves, love others. We go & do good, not harm. Prominent reformed leaders have substituted themselves for the HS thru their visions & endless rules: stay at home adults, homeschool (I am a hs mom, btw), no Frozen movie, 1st time obedience, & on. It’s their many rules, not God’s moral law you must follow. So we see that children AND PARENTS are brought up with many very specific rules & ARE NOT encouraged to think for themselves, to discern, to CHOOSE. Children are hedged in, but not protected, IMO. Please observe on your own with eyes wide open.

So there are many created specific rules & many handbooks (Piper & Grudem’s 576 page of Comp rules) that deny an individual can know what good is themselves & choose good. That is the denial of the new birth creature in Christ, isn’t it? In this movement, you are made to be very, very reliant on the leaders & to do what they tell you to do. They say the law was abolished, but in reality they just replace moral law with a lengthy list of their own rules. And that’s how immoral abuse isn’t recognized as horrific but breaking 1st time obedience without question (or fill in their rule blank) is definitely a no-no.

What I see & can’t stand is the majority of this movement’s leadership use or agree with church discipline to go after ordinary people who disagree and/or leave (sometimes suing them), & then ignores/is silent to abuse, cover up, crimes. Think about the belief (what it actually is) that leads to that kind of action…. long & hard.

“It is true that I disagree with much of this blog’s assessment of the Gospel Coalition, but if you want to convince me of your views regarding recent events, it would help me to not have to sort through blanket attacks and insinuations about all Calvinists. We are people too, not just some punching bag that can be battered at will.”

Cal, if you cannot see how badly TGC dissed the victims of heinous sex abuse from SGM by their actions defending Mahaney over the past 2 years, there is nothing I can say to help you see it,

My comments here are about what Calvin taught and how that is played out with celebrity Calvinists in some cases. I have quite a few friends who are Calvinists or lean that way. Most of them would not set foot in a YRR church.

“Is it to try to discuss abuse in the church, or assert that every Calvinist (or perhaps in this thread I should derogatorily say “Calvinistas” or Calvinism’s “ilk”) is an abuser who preaches hate and has no concern for others?” Cal

Cal, I 100% agree with you on this.

I can only speak for myself…. I am not speaking about Calvinists in the pews. I am no speaking about laity. I am speaking about what I see & observe about the reformed or Calvinist main LEADERSHIP today.

“Because he was a determinist and God determined him to have power over others in Geneva.”

But what if this determination by God for him to have power and be a religious leader/teacher/ruler were just a mean trick God played on Calvin? He really can’t be sure of his election if he teaches that God plays these kinds of tricks on people. I am not following the logic, or lack of it.

“But what if this determination by God for him to have power and be a religious leader/teacher/ruler were just a mean trick God played on Calvin? He really can’t be sure of his election if he teaches that God plays these kinds of tricks on people. I am not following the logic, or lack of it”

Oops! I forgot about his teaching on reprobates looking like they are saved and thinking they are saved but aren’t. Hmmmm. You have a point. .

I think about what love is. If I see any leadership that is wrong, dangerous, even harmful I am obligated to warn. We are talking about my words here. I have no power over anyone else.

Love is not 1st time obedience, which is really automatic robot obedience without question. Silence. I don’t want that from my child, other children, other adults, or anyone. That teaching is quite dangerous. It is a breeding ground for abuse.

Put it this way, when believers & unbelievers alike were outraged when the Catholic priest abuse was exposed, were they right to be upset at Catholic leadership & the priests who knew & remained silent instead of working to rectify the situation? Is it wrong to talk about why & factors that enable it within a church, religion, or org? Even pew-sitting, laity Catholics were outraged. BTW, I believe there are many Catholics who are brothers & sisters in Christ.

Cal, This post is about TGC, reformed leadership. Do you think it is wrong for you to be upset with the leadership? Do you think those of us who speak out about what our concerns are & what we see wrong with the leadership are wrong?

DEFAULT MODERATOR FOR THE MORNING UNTIL THE CANADIANS AND WEST COAST FOLKS WAKE UP:

This thread is getting too off target. I may have contributed to that by trying to explain in more depth what the issues possibly could be that caused The Gospel Coalition to have wanted to part ways with Tullian Tchividjian.

Taylor Joy graciously wrote this article, allowed SSB to post it, and is guest blogging here. It does her a disservice to discuss something else, even if it is peripheral to the discussion.

Take it to the Calvinism thread. If it doesn’t have something to do with Tullian’s and TGC’s doctrine, and how he’s been treated in regard to the SGM/Mahaney matter, it doesn’t belong here.

Taylor Joy, Thank you for calling them out in such a succinct way. There’s no way to avoid the fact that their authoritarian, highly controlling teaching and way of life is absolutely linked to how the sex abuse cases were handled (or not handled, rather).

For those like Joanna who fear that these men are innocent until proven otherwise and are clinging to the PR pleas by TFG to “assume the best” about CJ (one of the many SGMese phrases used to silence naysayers), at some point you have to draw your own conclusion based on the series of events of the last few years. In my opinion, even if by some miracle CJ was not aware of the same info as Grant Layman was, he most certainly knew something.

As was stated earlier in this thread, SGM and Covenant Life Church functions in a very efficient model of info from the lay people being passed on to caregroup leaders, who report to pastors. They keep files on members. When I finally woke up and left my SG church, my pastor used things I thought Ibhad shared in confidence in my “care” group against me, and out of context. This has happened over and over to pretty muh any one who tries to leave the cult. Yes, I see it as a cult now in retrospect. You try to leave and they threaten to accuse of sin in front of the congregation (and follow through with this when some leave- their “sin” is not submitting to authority by staying.)

This kind of crap happened under CJ’s watch. Whatever he knew about the sex abuse cases, Taylor Joy is absolutely correct in that these guya are guilty based on their teaching alone. If you value church leaders as the ultimate authority in all matters, silence women and girls, and scare people into staying in your church, what the hell is a sex abuse victim to do? Um yes, an apology from this brand is long overdue.

Also, someone asked earlier when CJ was the senior pastor- in 2004, CJ passed the baton to Josh Harris but remained president of SGM which was headquartered in the same building until their exodus to Kentucky a year or two ago.

Here’s his “Vision (for Husbandly Leadership) for Your Family Vacation” audio interview. Yes, Vision is in his title. A vision for your vacation is what he had for today’s listening audience. Sorry manly men, Piper’s vision doesn’t give you a leadership break, not even during vacation. 😉

Okay, so, against my natural inclination to avoid all things Piper, I listened to the interview… and honestly, it just has me shaking my head in frustration. Piper’s gender gospel is crazy-making. Apparently taking the kids for a couple hours so that your wife can have time to herself is “leadership”? But the wife keeping the kids for a couple hours so her husband can have time to himself isn’t “leadership”, it’s.. what. More submission?

How about, just don’t be a selfish jerk. Whether you’re a wife or a husband, help plan activities and try to ensure that your partner has a nice, relaxing time away. Don’t make your husband do all the planning, don’t make your wife do all the work. Work and plan together. Boom, simple. It’s not that complicated, Johnny. There doesn’t need to be a “leader” or a “follower”. Just two grown ups wearing big boy and big girl panties, doing whatever needs to be done.

I suppose I’m not a godly wife because I’m the one taking the initiative to plan and organize our family vacation this year.. because my husband works, and he relies on me (submits to me?) to get it accomplished. I’m sure Piper would spin it as “He’s leading but not micromanaging” to which I say, Horse Buckey!

My church in Maryland functioned the same way that SGM did (and we ran our order of services in a very similar way). Old Mike Ratliffe would bee line from Gaithersburg up to our church in Severn when he cruised through town, too. In the early days, these folks all followed the Shepherding Discipleship model and learned the same stuff.

When I was a homegroup leader (we also had the same caregroup system), I was asked or rather told to make reports on members and then pass them up the chain of command to my assigned elder. I was floored. We quit after that first leader’s meeting and then were seen as a problem because we didn’t jump back into someone else’s home group.

When I worked in the church office, I learned that the pastors in the area had monthly luncheons with other “like minded” churches in the area. They shared information about people who had left with the pastors who received those members — almost like they passed on a rap sheet for their “sins.” The Vineyard pastor would find out about all of the “problems” someone created while at our church, and our new members who migrated from there would reported on to our pastors. So you couldn’t even leave the church and find a similar Charismatic church. We also had a relationship with the Episcopal Charismatics in the area, and I was terrified to go to one of their churches when I left mine.

It is what these guys were taught in the early shepherding movement, and the only thing that changed in terms of church government about People of Destiny when they became Sovereign Grace was the name. You need only to read a little of Ken Sande to demonstrate that they stuck with the party line, even though shepherding allegedly disbanded. It disbanded in name only.

Why was it necessary for Pastor John to dispense his “wisdom” re: family vacations, anyway? Is it really that foreign for these manly-men leader types to think “Maybe my wife needs help planning/organizing/executing the family vacation”. Are they that imbecilic?

My completely heathen, fully egalitarian in-laws would hear stuff like that interview and their eyeballs would bulge out of their heads. Husbands should help their wives plan things? Well DUH! It’s just so obvious to anyone with half a brain! Your wife needs help? Help her! Husband needs help? Help him! Don’t confuse it with “what’s my role here” “am I being a godly leader if I do dishes or watch children for a couple hours?” HELP YOUR WIFE, DUMMY! Jeeez!

But what they are all preaching is NOT progressive sanctification, it is PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION.

That’s what Beisner says, too. The legalists collapse justifying faith in with sanctifying faith, melding them together. It becomes a salvation by works deal, then.

If you die with a venial sin on your heart before having a chance to confess and are suddenly killed, are you no longer justified? Old line Roman Catholicism talked about moral and venial sins for this reason, but in the Reformed faith (allegedly), there is no need for panic and one can rest in assurance of God knowing your heart and will. (Vatican II might be different. I don’t know.) One flub up doesn’t remove your justification (though you still have to answer to the judge for your sins — and that is part of progressive sanctification).

Lots of New Calvinists seem to have made Christians impotent by almost arguing against the Spirit of Love, Power and a Sound Mind given to Christians, against the mind of Christ, against the new creation status/Gospel of reconciliation. Justification doesn’t stick, and Christians are stuck in the hapless peril of law-keeping that Paul talks about in Romans chapter 7. They are the guys who end up preaching progressive justification which is why Beisner likens it to Roman Catholicism.

It’s subtle, but that’s why it’s slick. And it’s complicated, and it diverts us from what Paul called the simplicity that is in Christ.

And if you look at Beisner’s dichotomy of too much quietism and too much legalism, it’s almost like the New Calvinists prescribe the legalism for us, but folks like CJ and Piper come out looking like quietists. Their standards our fluid. Ours are woe.

“Apparently taking the kids for a couple hours so that your wife can have time to herself is “leadership”? But the wife keeping the kids for a couple hours so her husband can have time to himself isn’t “leadership”, it’s.. what. More submission?”

Sarah, I had to laugh at your comment. When I listened, it sounded to me like Christian joint custody while on vacation. 😉 He said his kids spent 1/2 time with him & 1/2 time with his wife. Whatever works.

“I suppose I’m not a godly wife because I’m the one taking the initiative to plan and organize our family vacation this year.. because my husband works, and he relies on me (submits to me?) to get it accomplished. I’m sure Piper would spin it as “He’s leading but not micromanaging” to which I say, Horse Buckey!”

Exactly how we do it. I am the more adventurous one & it works great, so I say bull honkey. 🙂

I posted a question about the comment that Brent Detwiler made about the trial going forward this past week when he said that more info would come to light. I didn’t get any answer from him — but I haven’t yet looked at the new materials he posted on facebook this morning, either.

ITEM #1
Two additional cases were scheduled to go forward against Morales this week. James Roberts’ case was supposed to be heard this week. As part of a larger strategy and because of “Judicial Prudence,” those pending trials were cancelled. Not all of the matters are settled, and elements of Roberts’ case hinge on other investigations currently pursued or of some interest by the Maryland State DA. Considering the penalty demanded by Morales’ conviction on the 18th, it is not in the interest of the public and the DA’s office to follow through with the other trials at this time. I get the impression from Roberts’ statement that the DA may revisit this after sentencing of Morales in August.

As I understand things, there were elements of the two remaining cases implicating Morales that would expose more information about Mahaney’s level of knowledge if not involvement with this particular individual pastor, Nate Morales. They may be explored by the DA’s office in the future, if I’ve read these things correctly.

The other post that Brent Detweiler offered on Facebook this morning draws attention to a response statement made by parents of the children who were abused at the Northern Virginia SGM church. Brent cross posted information from a Wartburg Watch article summarizing their stance on the matter and noting the comments of the parents.

In response to CJ Mahaney’s recent statement, we offer this rebuttal.

> We met with CJ in January 2009 to discuss our daughter’s molestation and how Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax had handled it.
> There were 3 meetings with CJ and we have emails to verify this.
> He also sent us an article, When Child Sex Abuse Occurs: Considerations for Pastors.
> Details of our family’s meetings are in “Wallace’s Story” April 8, 2011.
> CJ mentioned in one of his emails that he found Noel’s story “heartbreaking”. Her story was made public on December 31, 2008.
> Kenneth Maresco (CLC pastor) was also involved with 2 separate meetings that we had with Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax.
> Both men were well informed on the situation regarding the Fairfax church.

Husbands should help their wives plan things? Well DUH! It’s just so obvious to anyone with half a brain! Your wife needs help? Help her! Husband needs help? Help him! Don’t confuse it with “what’s my role here” “am I being a godly leader if I do dishes or watch children for a couple hours?” HELP YOUR WIFE, DUMMY! Jeeez!

Right? Why does he have to make things so complicated and difficult? What is wrong with plain old common sense?

Common sense doesn’t allow you to get rich off of Jesus. With John Piper, the money flows into Desiring God, buying Piper the attention he craves. I wish someone would just say the obvious…you don’t want a marriage like John Piper’s.

I listened to a recent sermon where a pastor was telling his congregation that they need to have men like John Piper in their lives. As John Piper follows Christ, you follow John Piper. Where does an Orthodox Presbyterian minister, trained at Westminster Seminary, CA., find in Scripture that you should be exalting men from the pulpit in a sermon? It grieves me.

If your kid needs a diaper change, man up and do it. If the kid needs a nose wiped, man up and do it. If the dishes are dirty and the woman is nursing your child, man up and do them. And if you can barbecue, you can cook on the stove. Stir fry some ground sausage (1 lb roll), maybe with a little diced onion, blot out the extra grease with a paper towel, put the sausage in a 2 qt pan, drain and rinse 3 cans of beans (pinto, black, kidney, etc., not green or lima!), add a can of tomatoes (diced is best) or crushed tomatoes (or one of each), rinse the cans with water into the pot, add a dash of cinnamon, a dash of salt, and a table spoon of chili powder, bring to a boil, turn to very low and simmer 1/2 hour. Some times a crushed clove of garlic adds some kick). Eat it like chili or serve it over rice or pasta. Not a bit hard to do with a 90 IQ and an 8th grade education, so why can’t you?!